Factual error: Despite the several episodes containing serious offences like murder, you never see two barristers on any side. It is usual with serious offences for each party to have one Queen's Counsel and a junior, and although there are exceptions, we never ever see this very common practice in any episode.David Mercier
Factual error: An error which arises from having the same characters in different episodes is that the frequently-featured barristers vary the cases they deal with to a laughable extent. One Queen's Counsel (A barrister appointed as counsel to the British crown) was seen defending a murderer in one episode and prosecuting a trivial offence in another. Someone of this seniority would not fluctuate workload like this.David Mercier
Factual error: During an episode which concerned a sweet shop owner charged with touching a young girl, there were two instances where a question of law arose. The judge should have sent the jury out of the court to discuss this with the barristers, but he didn't and exposed the jury to biased information.David Mercier
Factual error: There are several instances of barristers, judges and court officials wearing the wrong court attire. Ushers are seen in wigs, which they don't wear, the judges have their winter garments on, despite it being summer and vice versa. Similarly, none of the barristers are ever presented as "QCs" and yet several are wearing the QC silks, but none have the waistcoat which goes with it.David Mercier
Factual error: In one episode, I think it's the one entitled "Breaking Point" which featured an assault, right at the end the barristers from different sides are seen shaking hands in the courtroom. This is a breach of one of the most important rules of the British adversarial court system and it's second nature to barristers not to do it.David Mercier
Join the mailing list
Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.